| To: Win Smith who wrote (148899) | 10/25/2004 10:34:26 AM | | From: Harvey Allen | | | | Whom is al-Qaeda voting for?
.
.
.
From al-Qaeda's point of view, the US leaving Iraq would be a major victory. And the US staying in Iraq - bleeding thousands of men and billions of dollars in the hands of a national guerrilla struggle - is also a major victory. So al-Qaeda does not bother to vote Bush or Kerry because the main sticking point - US policy in the Middle East, the thirst for oil, the one-sided support for Israel - will still be there. But in terms of accelerating a clash of civilizations - a total polarization between the Muslim world and the Christian world - of course al-Qaeda prefers a fundamentalist like Bush.
atimes.com |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: michael97123 who wrote (148924) | 10/25/2004 10:41:42 AM | | From: Sun Tzu | | | | >> Regarding the conventional weapons that are now missing. This is very disturbing to me and this isnt the first time since the iraq war began.
It is disturbing to me too. But I don't think it was unpredictable. In fact I have to admit Iraq is going better than I had expected. But that is only because I expected that moron, Saddam, to have been busy building post-invasion resistance force and actively distributing the ammo among all the Iraqi factions. He did not, so things are a little better than I expected.
>> The failure of this war has more to do with poor administration from DOD than any perceived failure of neocon ideology you harp on.
DoD is the Neocon movement. How many of the neocon pioneers are in DoD or related departments? Failure of DoD is the failure of neocons. One of the biggest problems with neocons is that they are too heavy handed. Their solutions to most problems is to blow more things up, fallowed by throw massive money at corporations with ties to themselves to "rebuild" what they blew up.
...about Kerry:
I am not terribly keen on the guy. I don't think there is a substantial difference between Kerry and Bush on Iraq. Where the difference comes to play is that I think Kerry will be more reluctant to expand the war and he may possibly be better on the Afghanistan front.
On the other hand I think Kerry will be much better for the environment (how can anyone be worse than Bush?).
On the legal front, again, I don't think Kerry will right the wrong laws Bush has placed on the books. Governments never willingly give up power. I am mortified of the kinds of laws and policy changes Bush managed to get on the books. I can imagine Nightline interviews with the Ayatollahs, China, or North Korea where they will point out to the new Bush laws and point out how they are not so different than US. America can no longer claim to be the land of the free...and I don't think Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) will fix this unless they absolutely have to. But at least I'd have more faith in Kerry appointees to the supreme court than Bush's. So may be some day the court will moderate the civil rights.
I don't think stating an exit date is a good idea. It will just weaken the US position in Iraq and get the opposition started on planning for the date. But I think internally we should have an exit date somewhere between 1-5 years from now. I'd favor sooner rather than later. In an ideal world, I'd put a virtual Chinese wall around Iraq and pull out right away. After 10 years of none interference by anyone, Iraqis will have hammered out how they want to live and we'll negotiate with the government in charge...but of course this will not be easy without international support and all those US corporations who want a piece of "rebuilding" will not let it happen. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148928) | 10/25/2004 10:44:32 AM | | From: jlallen | | | | Ok...I don't know any "neocons" who think that way either....myself included....your statement was a bit sweeping....
JLA |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148835) | 10/25/2004 11:03:09 AM | | From: jttmab | | | | "All the arguments say that when sanctions ended, Saddam Hussein would have had a free hand. By the council's [Security Council of which the US is a veto holding member] own resolutions that wasn't so."
That was a very good point that was completely ignored by the media. It was ignored by everyone in the public eye. [Sorry, you don't count someone in the public eye. Nor would I.]
jttmab |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Michael Watkins who wrote (148847) | 10/25/2004 11:08:07 AM | | From: jttmab | | | | I don't expect any pro-Bush folks to reply to your post because they see nothing wrong with contravening Geneva convention
Which probably has something to do with the majority of Britains no longer seeing the US as a model of democracy. The US is becoming a middle ages country with high tech.
jttmab |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148836) | 10/25/2004 11:09:05 AM | | From: carranza2 | | | | If you think France and Germany have to lend their (largely symbolic) support to a US move for it to be "legitimate" then you're entitled to your opinion.
From strictly commercial and domestic political standpoints, which is what the Germans and French seem to understand best, not supporting the US invasion made a lot of sense.
Why do any heavy lifting to secure oil supplies if the bulk of the dirty work was [again] going to be done by the US? Why pay for oil security if the US had clearly signalled its intention to invade Iraq unilaterally? Why risk the wrath of the voters if a reflexive anti-US stance increased chances of re-election?
Seems fairly simple to me.
Economic and domestic political interests coincided in this case to preclude France and Germany from doing the right thing.
The problem will be one of ultimate perceptions. While the US and the UK are the only major powers fighting the Jihadists with any kind of zeal, such zeal is suspect and will become even more suspect if Kerry is elected and Blair dumped. If my thinking that a show of weakness to the Jihadists is deadly, then the French and Germans are in for a very rough time as they have in essence capitulated to them at a time when their own domestic Muslim populations are growing. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: jlallen who wrote (148901) | 10/25/2004 11:17:54 AM | | From: GST | | | | <I figured you'd have nothing relevant to say...> I have listed your contributions to the thread, in order, in the text below:
1.
2.
3. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148917) | 10/25/2004 11:19:25 AM | | From: GST | | | | | The trend has been towards rabid partisan diatribes, but there are still some thoughtful people on the thread taking a variety of perspectives. Look forward to hearing from you. |
| | Foreign Affairs Discussion Group | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| |
